Toxic Femininity and the #MeToo Mob: Weaponizing Emotional Distress |
The manifestation of anger and hatred that defines toxic femininity is increasingly on shameful public display.
|
Mark Alexander |
"I hate deception, even where the imagination only is concerned." —George Washington (1779) 
Did you noticed in the Supreme Court nominee hearings that some women harbor unresolved anger toward men?
In 2017, the most angry of the lot emerged under the #MeToo identity-politics banner — with legitimate allegations of sexual misconduct in the workplace. Most notable were those that brought down Harvey Weinstein's Hollywood empire and forced the resignations of Rep. John Conyers, Sen. Al Franken, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, and NBC's Matt Lauer.
Not coincidentally, each of these deviants belonged to or supported the party of unrepentant serial sexual assailant Bill Clinton and his chief defender and enabler Hillary Clinton.
That feminist anger coalesced after the election of Donald Trump and metastasized with his nomination of now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, thanks to a disgraceful character assassination charade scripted and calculated by Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer.
As I have written previously, the Feinstein/Schumer strategy was to make Christine Ford, who alleged that Kavanaugh groped her 36 years ago, the poster proxy for every woman who has ever suffered any offending sexual encounter along a full spectrum — from romantic rejection, to a sense of being objectified, to sexual harassment, to regrets about encounters resulting from alcohol- or drug-impaired cognitive ability, to actual sexual assault. For some women who've been swept up into the #MeToo mob, Ford embodies their collective anger, grief, and desire for justice — despite the fact that her allegations were unsupported, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and utterly refuted by the alleged witnesses she named.
To complete the political pretense, Feinstein, et al., fraudulently framed Kavanaugh as the poster proxy for every male who has ever offended a woman.
However, by politicizing this allegation to create a victimization collective in order to convert that constituency into midterm votes, Democrats have effectively devalued legitimate assault claims.
Women should be outraged by that, but the Feinstein/Schumer strategy was all about optics, not facts.
But no matter. Demo leaders think they will get away with it, believing — in fact depending on — their assumption that women are emotionally incontinent and thus can be stirred into a frenzy, then manipulated into voting blocs for election cycles. Women are their largest constituent group, and they're already counting the midterm votes.
Sen. Elizabeth "Fauxcahontas" Warren (D-MA) declared, "Take your pain and turn it into power on November 6th." Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), who nobody other than a few people on the Big Island had ever heard of until her Kavanaugh rants, added, "All these angry people are out there ... [and] they're going to go to the polls and vote." Former senior Obama spokesperson Marie Harf elucidated that strategy: "[28] days from now we go into a midterm election, and [Kavanaugh] will help Democrats at the polls. Women will be fired up."
In an analysis column from December of last year, "The Democrats Strategy to Take Down Republicans," I wrote, Democrats "are going to make the #MeToo 'epidemic of sexual assault' the centerpiece of the 2018 and 2020 elections, inciting female voter outrage to overturn Republican majorities in the House and Senate in the 2018 midterm election, and then to defeat Trump in 2020."
That was an easy prediction, but I had no idea how successful Democrats and their Leftmedia propaganda machine would be toward this end.
The #MeToo movement has become the increasingly confrontational female wing of the mostly male "antifa movement" of self-proclaimed anti-fascist fascists.
So, what's the source of all this toxic femininity?
Coinciding with the emergence of the ever-expanding #MeToo mob is a common reference to "toxic masculinity."
In essence, toxic masculinity is street language for hegemonic masculinity, defined as legitimizing the dominant role of men in American culture, and thus justifying the subordination of women. At its core, toxic masculinity embraces the sexist generalization that most men are aggressive sexual predators who constantly objectify and prey on women.
Of course, all men exhibit differing degrees of sexual interest and pursuit. This is natural and instinctual, and in this day and age of sexual licentiousness, women should be fully aware of this. There is also a subset of men who objectify women, and lure them into situations and circumstances for sexual encounters that these women may regret later. And then there is a much smaller subset of those men who are, in fact, predators — those who sexually assault women.
But the simple statistical fact is that the vast majority of men are not the sexual predators the #MeToo movement and its likeminded feminist adherents claim they are.
This brings us to the parallel of toxic masculinity — toxic femininity.
The manifestation of anger and hatred that defines toxic femininity is increasingly on shameful public display.
I believe the source of most (not all) of this toxic anger is attributable to one primary factor — an epidemic of absent or ineffectual fathers in American homes, which is at the root of just about every social and cultural problem in our nation. Yes, I know that assertion will upset feminists because they believe fathers are dispensable.
Bear with me.
Women who've been abandoned or inadequately cared for by their father early in life often exhibit what psychologists call transference neurosis — deep-seated anger resulting from deep-seated fear. For the record, anger is often associated with an underlying fear.
In the case of toxic femininity, this transference is directed toward men in general and is often combined with other factors associated with abandonment, a poor self-image for lack of affirmation, and narcissistic personality disorder. Often these women are more vulnerable to poor relationship choices, which makes them more susceptible to male predation. This exacerbates their inability to trust men, which plays into an unfortunate spiraling cycle of, at best, failed relationships, anger, and resentment.
In an article by University of Southern California professors Shoba Sreenivasan and Linda Weinberger, they write, "'Toxic femininity' refers to women who are hostile to nurturance and cooperation, opting instead for aggression and backstabbing to get ahead." While they were writing about toxic women in the workplace, the underlying causes of this toxicity are similar, and the same can be said for women who exhibit these traits in other social groups.
For the record, toxic femininity is not the expression of anger about legitimate offenses. The frequency of sexual assault should not be understated, though there is significant dissent on the CDC report definitions, according to Time magazine and The Washington Post.
I know women who have been sexually assaulted, and others who have had regrettable sexual encounters, and I have empathy and compassion for them, and by extension, even those toxic feminists who are victims of assault.
I should add that toxic masculinity is often also the result of absent or ineffectual fathers in the home. Sexual offenders most often come from homes with no father.
All that being said, when men and women rally in groups based on common and wide-ranging offenses, their victimhood is both affirmed and amplified. And that has resulted in the now-familiar unhinged mob protest scenes around Washington and around the nation.
When considering those scenes, I'm reminded of the movie "As Good as It Gets," in which Jack Nicholson is asked about his successful fictionalization of female characters. He responds, "I think of a man, and then I take away reason and accountability." That was a funny line, but there's nothing funny about the toxicity that infects certain women and men. It accounts for the increasingly uncivil, irrational, and virulent #MeToo mob, which has been co-opted by the Left for its political agenda, and it has falsely framed both Justice Kavanaugh particularly and the Republican Party generally.
As for mob rule, Hillary Clinton told CNN this week: "You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about. That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength [a.k.a.: 'incivility']."
So, according to Clinton, there will be no civility until Democrats are returned at least partially to power.
Answering Clinton's unconscionable remark, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who was critically wounded by a Bernie Sanders supporter last year, responded, "Seriously, Hillary?"
Rand Paul, who was shot at by the same leftist assailant, and who was severely beaten after being ambushed by a man in his hometown, warned, "I fear that there's going to be an assassination. I really worry that somebody is going to be killed, and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation ... they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence."
I suppose we should be grateful to Clinton for unwittingly admitting what most rational observers already know: Fomenting and inflaming mobs is dangerous.
As for the next SCOTUS nomination...
By standing firmly with then-Judge Kavanaugh, and by keeping his powder mostly dry amid all the unhinged leftist protests, Donald Trump effectively gave Republicans a strong midterm campaign rally theme — a choice between steadfast Republicans or an angry leftist mob.
After the Senate vote, Trump declared, "You don't hand matches to an arsonist, and you don't give power to an angry left-wing mob. Democrats have become too EXTREME and TOO DANGEROUS to govern. Republicans advocate the Rule of Law — not the rule of the mob. VOTE REPUBLICAN!"
But the current bump Republicans are experiencing in the wake of the Feinstein/Schumer charade is certainly perishable.
If Trump gets another SCOTUS nomination, regardless of who holds the Senate after November, it's likely to be a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. I anticipate that he'll nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who he held back for precisely this reason.
As I wrote in July, "While some conservatives are lamenting the choice of Kavanaugh over Barrett, I believe Trump's strategy is to hold Barrett in the wings until Ruth Bader Ginsburg vacates the seat she barely occupies now."
And if you think the Demos were triggered by the Kavanaugh nomination, you can expect a full frontal assault when Trump attempts to replace the first Democrat-appointed SCOTUS justice in almost 30 years.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776 |
No comments:
Post a Comment